It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.N: Global warming crisis overblown

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Cynic
reply to post by AndyMayhew
 


You raise good talking points however their is a fundamental flaw in your rebuttal.
If AGW is causing Climate Change, why did the IPCC fudge their data - Cherry-Pick if you like to make Agenda 21 more believable than it actually is.


I'm not sure they did? Although I understand that the 4AR was downgraded under political pressure - we wait to see what 5AR says. But I tend to look at the science used by the IPCC reports, not the reports themselves.


More importantly, why do ice core samples show a variation of about .1% in carbon emissions attributed in theory by man since the time of the Industrial Revolution?


Eh? Ice cores are the main basis on which we are sure that CO2 levels have not exceeded ~280ppm for hundreds of thousands of years. Until recently, when they have increased by some 40% to ~400ppm

Where did you get 0.1% from???


IPCC data suggests the climate is changing, a fact not in dispute here, but now we are back to another Ice Age not a hotter planner as originally foretold. Again, they cannot have it both ways.


But we're not. Reduced axial tilt does suggest that we should be undergoing a gradual cooling, albeit not nearly enough to enter a new ice age. And, indeed, we have been for around 4-5,000 years. However recent trends have reversed this. Of course, whether this is temporary does remain to be seen. At present, the only expanation for this reversal is human activity (it may be coincidental, but what else has changed in the past 150 years compared with the preceding 5,000 years?).


China may be building wind farms, but they have also built more coal fired generators than the West combined. No doubt to offset the lack of power generated when the wind doesn't blow. Many of these propellers require electric motors as back up for such occasions so the conundrum is , where does that power come from?


Don't get me started on the uselessness of wind turbines!
That's something on which I think we can agree.




posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 





In what way was that an apology for anything?


IPCC’s climate projections on target so far

Of course you can't know if the article got the paper right, because i have a feeling you never actually read it. Amazing how much things can change in only a few month.

Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years



Doo-Doo heads.


The kids will love it.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   

AndyMayhew

And, indeed, we have been for around 4-5,000 years. However recent trends have reversed this. Of course, whether this is temporary does remain to be seen. At present, the only expanation for this reversal is human activity (it may be coincidental, but what else has changed in the past 150 years compared with the preceding 5,000 years?).



Eh? 4-5,000 yrs?


The Paleolithic (US spelling; also spelled Palaeolithic) Age, Era or Period is a prehistoric period of human history distinguished by the development of the most primitive stone tools discovered (Grahame Clark's Modes I and II), and covers roughly 99% of human technological prehistory. It extends from the earliest known use of stone tools, probably by hominins such as australopithecines, 2.6 million years ago, to the end of the Pleistocene around 10,000 BP.[1]


Wiki


Civilisation has been around a lot longer than 5,000 yrs.

And man has been around a LOT longer than civilisation.
But thats beside the point.

Unless, you are a creationist?



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SloAnPainful
 


You are making the claim, you back it up. I have no problem continuing to not believe you.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Cynic
 



WORLDNETDAILY EXCLUSIVE
NEW ICE AGE 'TO BEGIN IN 2014'
Russian scientist to alarmists: 'Sun heats Earth!'
Published: 05/17/2010 at 8:42 PM
JEROME R. CORSI

Read more at www.wnd.com...


I LOL'd! WND and Jerome Corsi on Climate... and someone wonders why I "reduce the debate...".

You really get your climate news from a birther (oops there goes the name calling again!)?

LMFAO!


CHICAGO – A new “Little Ice Age” could begin in just four years, predicted Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia.
Read more at www.wnd.com...


These are the same guys that keep predicting alien invasions aren't they?

Okay, okay I'll stop...

Here's one of Abdussamatov's research papers


Since the middle of the last century, the Sun is in a phase of unusually high activity, as indicated by frequent occurrences of sunspots, gas eruptions, and radiation storms.


Mid last century would be the 1950's. TSI was up between 1900 and 1950 but has been down since then. The 50 years of higher solar output does not explain continued warming after the 1960's. The paper then goes on to say this.


However, researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years. They took the measured and calculated variations in the solar brightness over the last 150 years and compared them to the temperature of the Earth. Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, the Earth’s temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time.


So it's highly likely that a solar minimum will take a few degrees off the edge of warming, but in both papers that I just skimmed through the one WND refers to and the one I found and linked... Abdussamatov links the sunspot count to earth's climate and there is plenty of reason to do so, no one would argue that I don't think... the problem is he compares the solar minimum during the little ice age to the solar minimum seemingly without taking into account that we kept warming through minimums, so something oh I dunno like maybe increased Co2 emissions factored in and continue to do so.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Troll much?



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Cynic
reply to post by 1104light
 


Why should I have to bother with Big Al's personal finances? Money is really not the issue here.
It's about transparency.


I have no idea. I am not the one running around here claiming that he made a fortune off of global warming. Sorry if you are bothered by my preference for truth and facts over internet rantings based on AM radio talking points.

Don't you expect the truth here?



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by 1104light
 



You can believe whatever you like, it's your prerogative. Even a blind monkey can get laid every now and then.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 01:26 PM
link   

talklikeapirat
reply to post by Kali74
 





In what way was that an apology for anything?


IPCC’s climate projections on target so far

Of course you can't know if the article got the paper right, because i have a feeling you never actually read it. Amazing how much things can change in only a few month.

Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years



Doo-Doo heads.


The kids will love it.


What are you even going on about? Why do you keep linking the same articles and papers over and over? I read them! LOL

The kids are the target audience, aren't they?



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   

OneManArmy

Civilisation has been around a lot longer than 5,000 yrs.

And man has been around a LOT longer than civilisation.
But thats beside the point.

Unless, you are a creationist?


??? ot sure what you are getting at?

I accept the Ruddiman hypothesis suggests that human actvities may have been affecting global temps for ~6,000 years, but that is disputed.

There are also suggestions that the Black Death in the 1300s and (partially inadvertent) genocide of native Americans in the 15-1600s may also have affected climate due to changes in vegetation cover following widescale depopulation.

Etc

However changes in atmospheric composition (Greenhouse effect) and wider landuse changes have only really come into play in the past 150 years, accelerating though the later part of the 20th century.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   

OneManArmy

1104light
reply to post by jdub297
 


What an insane rant. Either it is real or not. We need to be on the same planet to go further.


Until you join us on THIS planet it might prove hard to go further.

Only one person prattling on out of me and you, I get a feeling it isnt me.
I wasnt talking about Al Gore, so why(in a post addressed to me) are you talking about Al Gore?

And talking of insanity, all I can say is, people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.


My reply was not to you, it was to Jdub. It even says so in the post so speaking of not being on the same planet.... I replied to someone else and you did not get it? Odd. Maybe the person I replied to got it though. You should worry more about making sense out of simple words.



And onto the subject of "computer models".
Any scientist or "educated type" that really thinks they can factor the variables required to predict future weather patterns is an IDIOT. We can barely predict the weather for next week let alone years into the future. The failure of the weather to follow our vastly limited "computer models" proves this time and time again. But hey if that makes me crazy, Ill wear my badge with pride.
With whats considered "normal" these days, Im proud to be abnormal.



edit on 20139America/Chicago09am9amWed, 18 Sep 2013 11:51:14 -05000913 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)


Ok, you go onto all the subjects you like. Let me get back to me conversation that was not with you anyway.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Cynic
reply to post by 1104light
 



You can believe whatever you like, it's your prerogative. Even a blind monkey can get laid every now and then.



It is kinda of cute to watch you pout when you get caught up in your own BS. Try, in the future, to only write things you know are actual facts and be able to back them up. Then you won't have to get all med when you do get asked to back up your BS.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Cynic
 


Read much?
Try reading the whole post.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 



You've asked me a question, if it was rhetorical use more emoticons, so i don't need to bother to reply.

The article that you've linked dicusses a paper, which you've never read that says climate models were right on track, but they weren't, which is clearly demonstrated by another paper published only a few month later.


Doo-Doo head



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


I've already pointed to one link which you have chosen to ridicule.
There are many others but I don't think you will get the point.
Other than the one under you hat that is.
You really are a trolling dipsh*t aren't you.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   

talklikeapirat
reply to post by Kali74
 



You've asked me a question, if it was rhetorical use more emoticons, so i don't need to bother to reply.

The article that you've linked dicusses a paper, which you've never read that says climate models were right on track, but they weren't, which is clearly demonstrated by another paper published only a few month later.


Doo-Doo head


But I did read it...
Emoticons make the text lines uneven. I don't like it.

edit on 18-9-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by 1104light
 


Get stuffed. We each have our views on the matter.
The very fact that yours is totally incorrect is moot.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Cynic
reply to post by Kali74
 


I've already pointed to one link which you have chosen to ridicule.
There are many others but I don't think you will get the point.
Other than the one under you hat that is.
You really are a trolling dipsh*t aren't you.




Okay, okay I'll stop...

Here's one of Abdussamatov's research papers


Since the middle of the last century, the Sun is in a phase of unusually high activity, as indicated by frequent occurrences of sunspots, gas eruptions, and radiation storms.


Mid last century would be the 1950's. TSI was up between 1900 and 1950 but has been down since then. The 50 years of higher solar output does not explain continued warming after the 1960's. The paper then goes on to say this.


However, researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years. They took the measured and calculated variations in the solar brightness over the last 150 years and compared them to the temperature of the Earth. Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, the Earth’s temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time.


So it's highly likely that a solar minimum will take a few degrees off the edge of warming, but in both papers that I just skimmed through the one WND refers to and the one I found and linked... Abdussamatov links the sunspot count to earth's climate and there is plenty of reason to do so, no one would argue that I don't think... the problem is he compares the solar minimum during the little ice age to the solar minimum seemingly without taking into account that we kept warming through minimums, so something oh I dunno like maybe increased Co2 emissions factored in and continue to do so.




posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Cynic
reply to post by 1104light
 


Get stuffed. We each have our views on the matter.
The very fact that yours is totally incorrect is moot.


Gonna take your ball and go home now or just stay and spoil it for everyone? Look, I like facts. Why that pisses you off is way beyond me.



posted on Sep, 18 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by 1104light
 


I gave them already.
As to going home, what gave you that idea.
Don't let it be said that I chose to run away, I am still here.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join